Sagan wrote:

The fascination with this enterprise (SETI) is broad and enduring, and for very good reason. And far from being too expensive, the program would ave cost about on attack helicopter per year.

Good point, Carl.

One Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopter costs roughly 35.5 million dollars.

If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

Public funding SETI is no longer an issue. But you get my point. Because an enterprise is fascinating, it doesn't automatically mean it's a justified expense.

ant wrote:If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

Public funding SETI is no longer an issue. But you get my point. Because an enterprise is fascinating, it doesn't automatically mean it's a justified expense.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if overpopulation is what dooms mankind? In hindsight, the best way to spend money isn't necessarily on saving lives, but preventing pregnancies. Perhaps there is a solution to some of these issues in the knowledge pool of ET. Just because something appears to be a justified expense doesn't mean it's a justified expense. How do you prove justification?

Perhaps our descendants will look back on our time and marvel at us - possessed of the technology to detect other beings, but closing our ears because we insisted on spending wealth to protect us from an enemy that no longer exists

Carl Sagan.


Carl was speaking about US military expenditures, post Cold War.
What I'm going to nitpick Sagan (the scientist) on is the first part of his quote.

There was ZERO evidence we possessed adequate technology to detect intelligent alien civilizations in Sagan's time, and there is ZERO evidence we have the appropriate technological capabilities in the present. Therefore, it can't be said then or now that we are "closing our ears."

I love the idea of SETI. Carl seems to have trouble grounding himself scientifically when talking about SETI.
This is not meant as an insult - but it truly seems, with this type of talk, that SETI is like a religion to Carl.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if overpopulation is what dooms mankind? In hindsight, the best way to spend money isn't necessarily on saving lives, but preventing pregnancies.

Coincidentally I thought of that very same thing the moment I clicked "submit"

It's a good devil's advocate question. I thought of it because I've been training myself to play DA with myself more often.

I'm uncertain of the truth that overpopulation is a real problem that comes with the serious consequences we often hear about. Maybe to a certain extent, but not close to the gloom and doom, apocalyptic scenarios.

China's concern with overpopulation caused them to limit the amount of pregnancies. An unintended consequence is now a serious concern with an aging populace and a future shortage of man power to care for the elderly while maintaining an enormous economic engine.

I'm not convinced there's not enough resources to go around. Considering the enormous wealth/poverty discrepancies we often hear about, an argument can be made that it's a hoarding and not a shortage of resources (present or future) that's really the issue here.
Not possible to invest in saving lives while resources and wealth continue to be hoarded?
Where's the empathy here?

Of course its harder to be empathetic when one million people are a few thousand miles away from you and aren't starving in front of your face.
When it's closer to home, empathy becomes easier to practice.

There are two aspects regarding over population.

1) it is unlikely that overpopulation will doom mankind. If and when population exceeds resources, limiting factors will reduce the population.

2) even if intelligent life exists and travels in space how are we to assume that they would save humans as opposed to serving them ala
To Serve Mankind

2) even if intelligent life exists and travels in space how are we to assume that they would save humans as opposed to serving them ala
To Serve Mankind

Yep. The assumption is that aliens would be benevolent. Almost, angelic, if you will.
Why? Why should we assume that, all while supporting METI?
There is zero basis for that assumption. It's unscientific.

stahrwe wrote:I have no rational explanation for what happened to the keys. To me that qualifies as a metaphysical experience.

So the Triune Christian God is a Prankster? What a bizarre use of "The Force". To quote Spock, "Fascinating!"

Oh and strictly for fun:

Thank you Ant.

LaDroid I suspect you are indulging in the potent potable shown in your post.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

Public funding SETI is no longer an issue. But you get my point. Because an enterprise is fascinating, it doesn't automatically mean it's a justified expense.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if overpopulation is what dooms mankind? In hindsight, the best way to spend money isn't necessarily on saving lives, but preventing pregnancies. Perhaps there is a solution to some of these issues in the knowledge pool of ET. Just because something appears to be a justified expense doesn't mean it's a justified expense. How do you prove justification?

Do you think there's a moral obligation to save lives that could be saved if we redirected resources that go to stuff like extracurricular scientific ventures?

What's the phrase.., "expanding our moral circle" ?
Is it expanding it too much by doing what I suggested?

If we directed that money to international aid programs like clean water or doctors without borders instead of trying to ease drop on ET, how many lives could be saved each year?

The poor you will have with you always.

Or something like that?